Re: Requirements on validation: (1) combine schemas, (2) divid
Noah, > I don't think you've accurately characterised the XSD language. Roger quoted what I wrote. > You can, > to a significant degree, to incremenal validation if your validator > supports it. Here we apparently disagree. I think that W3C XML Schema fails to meet the goal. > First of all, you can get a degree of modularity by using > facilities like xs:include. No, xs:include and xs:import merely provides modularization of schemas. Modularization is a good thing, but you still have to understand a lot about what you want to include or import I would argue that include/import is simlar to procedure calls while NVDL and its precedessors are similar to software components. In the case of NVDL, authors of component schemas have to understand nothing about the overall picture. In WXS and RELAX NG, authors have to understand everything. You might be interested in my recent note (see my another mail "Full validation of Atom feeds containing extensions"). I believe that W3C XML Schema cannot capture advanced examples shown in this note. RELAX NG probably can do that, but I do not want to maintain such complicated schemas. NVDL and its predecessor NRL provide practical solutions. Cheers, -- MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@a...>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format